Differences Between the "Look" of Film & Digital Capture?

[tgtaylor]

I shot this image of the GGB a few days ago but was unsatisfied with it for several reasons that are not important here and re-shoot it a couple of days later. The printing quality is not to my standards either as at the time I was mainly interested in experimenting with using the enlargers Cyan filter as a neutral density filter to increase exposure time and wasn't as concerned with the dust that had settled on top of the glass negative carrier or the fact that I accidentally bumped the easels blades in the dark knocking them somewhat out of alignment which resulted in some bleeding out into the margins as I ordinarily would have been. Although the resulting print was scanned I think that it nonetheless shows a definite difference in the "looks" of digital and traditional (i.e., film) capture. What do you think?

Thomas



Toyo 45AX
150mm Lens
Kodak Porta 160NC
Fuji CA

[ROL]

I'm not sure what you're asking. It is a digital image on my computer display. Are you looking for critique of the image itself?

[BetterSense]

Digital does not have a look. You give it a look. It looks like whatever you want it to look like.

[Michael E]

This image reminds me of all the things I never liked about printing color film: Muddy highlights, no control of contrast or saturation, undefinable and hard to control color casts, etc.. If you ask me, you are right, film does look different from digital capture. I prefer the digital version. In fact, I only reconsiled myself to color photography after I started to shoot digital.

Michael

[Drew Wiley]

"Muddy highlights" and "lack of control" have nothing to do with color film. It's called,
learning to print in the first place.

[Jay DeFehr]

I think he's asking our opinions about which unique characteristics of film survive digitization, but I might be wrong.

There are characteristics associated with digital imaging, the amalgamation of which could be considered a look, at least to the degree film has a look.

[Roger Cole]

It might help to have a shot-on-digital version.

Otherwise it strikes me as unfair to ask for an opinion on differences in types of images with only one example of one of the two types, which the poster isn't satisfied with.

Interestingly enough I have a friend who shoots all digital though he used to shoot film, 35mm only. He saw my Linhof and loved it, asked if it was actually working (it looks bad enough that's an honest question.) I just showed him a stack of contact proofs and he gushed about the "depth" they had that he doesn't see in digital. But I'd also have to point out that 1) he shoots mainly color and these were all analog B&W on conventional paper, and 2) they were contact prints, which many people have pointed out do often seem to have a certain indefinable quality lacking in enlargements.

I think the best answer to this question is "it depends." So much can vary, it's just not a simple answer.

[tgtaylor]

I'm not sure what you're asking. It is a digital image on my computer display. Are you looking for critique of the image itself?

“Although the resulting print was scanned I think that it nonetheless shows a definite difference in the "looks" of digital and traditional (i.e., film) capture. What do you think?”

Digital does not have a look. You give it a look. It looks like whatever you want it to look like.

That's an absurbidity BetterSense for which you should have BetterSense. Consider Atget's refusal to print using the more modern methods and materials.

...If you ask me, you are right, film does look different from digital capture. I prefer the digital version. In fact, I only reconsiled myself to color photography after I started to shoot digital. Michael

I agree and can truthfully state that I am glad that most photographer have, like yourself, switched to digital capture. Chromogenic color prints from color negative film are, whether one likes them or not, simply "different" than those of the masses.

BTW, one can control and even dramatically alter the color and saturation of a given image by applying the appropriate additive or subtractive printing technique.

I think he's asking our opinions about which unique characteristics of film survive digitization, but I might be wrong.

There are characteristics associated with digital imaging, the amalgamation of which could be considered a look, at least to the degree film has a look.

Yes to the first sentence and I am in full agreement with the second.

It might help to have a shot-on-digital version.

Otherwise it strikes me as unfair to ask for an opinion on differences in types of images with only one example of one of the two types, which the poster isn't satisfied with.

Interestingly enough I have a friend who shoots all digital though he used to shoot film, 35mm only. He saw my Linhof and loved it, asked if it was actually working (it looks bad enough that's an honest question.) I just showed him a stack of contact proofs and he gushed about the "depth" they had that he doesn't see in digital. But I'd also have to point out that 1) he shoots mainly color and these were all analog B&W on conventional paper, and 2) they were contact prints, which many people have pointed out do often seem to have a certain indefinable quality lacking in enlargements.

I think the best answer to this question is "it depends." So much can vary, it's just not a simple answer.

Your friend probably never developed and more importantly printed his color film negatives - no doubt having a lab do it for him for which the results were notoriously atrocious for the majority of the population. Remember the crap you got back of images that you carefully framed and centered the exposure needle? For him and the overwhelming majority of todays photographers the digital revolution is a godsend for the cameras software is leaps and bounds better than the typical technician of yesterday. Now when they trip the shutter they will get something that they will be proud to show.

But and images look, especially in color photography, is a question that a photographer should settle for most if not all of his images. For example, how do you like your colors, soft or saturated? What about the shade of blue in your skies?...

[Roger Cole]

Your friend probably never developed and more importantly printed his color film negatives - no doubt having a lab do it for him for which the results were notoriously atrocious for the majority of the population. Remember the crap you got back of images that you carefully framed and centered the exposure needle? For him and the overwhelming majority of todays photographers the digital revolution is a godsend for the cameras software is leaps and bounds better than the typical technician of yesterday. Now when they trip the shutter they will get something that they will be proud to show.

But and images look, especially in color photography, is a question that a photographer should settle for most if not all of his images. For example, how do you like your colors, soft or saturated? What about the shade of blue in your skies?...

I should have pointed out that the vast majority of these contact prints he was admiring for their "depth" were black and white. There were a few color. I haven't gotten back into color in the darkroom yet but probably will. These date from the late 90s when I was doing color.

One of the color ones he liked is a shot of fall foliage and clouds over a field of green grass at the VA hospital in the area I used to live. When I saw the contact print again it jumped out at me how the scanned version had picked up a magenta cast in the sky that wasn't there on the contact print.

I tried taking the magenta out of the scan and here's the result, but if I took any more out the rest of the image became too green. Could this indicate some crossover induced in the scanning step? The original contact print looks better than this to me. Granted, I'm pretty awful with PS. I know even if there is a crossover many people could fix that too.

[paulr]

Digital does not have a look. You give it a look. It looks like whatever you want it to look like.

In generally I agree with that. It's absurd to say that there's a "digital look."

The various flaws and limitations of digital sensors can impose a look ... noise looks a certain way, blown highlights look a certain way, over-enlarged pixels look a certain way, bad sharpening looks a certain way ...

But these are not the "look" of digital, anymore than huge grain, dust spots, and scratches are the look of film.

When it comes to the actual visual signature of digitally captured file, meaning its tonal and color curves, it can look any way you want it to, within the limits of the information and noise you've recorded.